Quantum Mechanics Symposium 51
Alien54 writes "As reported in Wired Magazine, the first Quantum Mechanics Symposium is being held in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Topics to be discussed include Quantum Computing. Also to be discussed will be Atomic Lasers, a technology involving a coherent and tightly focused beam of atoms that was first developed by MIT researchers in 1997. One of the things that they could lead to is making a 3-D matter hologram using atom lasers. [not just make a 3-D image, but an actual replicate object]. Missing will be a talk by Stuart Hameroff, associate director of the University of Arizona's Center for Consciousness Studies, who recently had to cancel his appearance at the conference for personal reasons."
I've only one thing to add (Score:3)
It might be self promotion. But it could easily be a case of narcissim with a little naivete thrown in. Sometimes people see their research as of the upmost importance and opening up a whole new age of enlightement. They just assume that with the potential applications dependent on this infant technology, why wouldn't the world throw all the money and intellectual might it could at it? In some sence they don't really appreciate the difference between best and good enough, and often don't factor in cost. I think maybe the reason I've see it in the proportions I have is the self-love, and blinders feed the dedication. They push themselves, and those around them as hard as possible in a very narrow single minded pursuit, often for years. Getting atoms to fuse is relatively simple. Getting cheap power out of if is quite another problem. Same thing applies.
Re:Quantum Applications... (Score:1)
I aught to go and look over boson calculations again..
--
Re:Quantum Applications... (Score:2)
notes from an attendee (Score:3)
quantum computers are powered by cold fusion reactors.
heh.
seriously, though, i came away believing that practical quantum computers of any appreciable scale will never be a reality, not in any lifetime. too many exponential terms to bury -- like the error terms, the multi-body interferences in large scale (n > 10) systems, the basic cost of building a quantum computer, etc.
this is good news for fans of church's thesis (which says that all models of computation are polynomially equivalent).
josephson (yes, that josephson) was there, but he didn't talk about his crackpot theories on the quantum mechanics of paranormal events. i was disappointed, but it seemed like a lot of people were relieved.
the coolest talk characterized consciousness in terms of the wave function of the universe projected in a funny way onto the wave function for a brain.
or was it the other way around?
nobody
Re:Quantum applications are already here (Score:2)
The reason is that those devices do not operate at the level of individual fermions (or bosons). Transistors are bulk devices, needing many electrons. A spintronic-transistor, where the spin of each electron is taken into account (in an analagous fashion to polarised light, might qualifiy, because of the utilisation of the spin of the electrons.
Although, to be honsest, the real reason is that the symposia is for new stuff, and those systems are well understood, without the need to invoke QM constantly.
SQUID's are only used at cryogenic temperatures because they rely on the Josaphen junction, which can only exist in a superconductor. With the advent of high temperature superconductors, the peak is now around 130K (Of the top of my head, not my field). Materials like Magnesium diboride, which superconducts, but probably in a very different fashion to the other ceramics open up a new avenues in that area.
Oh, and I have used a SQUID (a couple of years back), in liquid nitrogen, not liquid helium.
--
Re:Quantum Applications... (Score:2)
Quantum mechanics doesn't just deal with fermions - bosons are allowed too. :-)
Not to mention anyons, particles that have fractional statistics - and therefore not bosons or fermions - that can exist in 2-dimensional systems. Can't seem to dig up a useful link, though.
Re:I've only one thing to add (Score:2)
Heh. And AI still "between five and 500 years" [siliconvalley.com].
it could easily be a case of narcissim with a little naivete thrown in.
Good point. Rabid optimism seems very common among scientists. Too much SF, no doubt.
Say, for all the talk about atomic holography, I can find absolutely nothing specific about it on Meystre's site. When he talks about copying objects, he's not talking about molecular synthesis, is he? He's probably only discussing something like what the current generation of three-D copiers can already do, with a special material that can be formed into any shape. People here seem to be jumping to the conclusion that it means the instant synthesis of organic molecules. Too much Star Trek, no doubt.
Tim
Re:Quantum Applications... (Score:2)
I don't know enough of the history of computing to argue that on a poin by point basis, so let me explain my reasoning.
Computing became accessable to specialist in the 1950's, possible 1960, depending how you count it.
Quantum mechanics became accessable to the specialist in the 1930's.
Yes, it's a skewed point of view, due to the much easier dissenination of ideas versus hardware.
Of course, another point of view would mention that QM calculations, in reality, require the use of a computer, and thus the field of actually doing things with it must therefore be younger than computing.
--
A programming language for this kind of computer.. (Score:1)
Re:Yeah, OK, you know what you're talking about.. (Score:1)
teehee
Re:A programming language for this kind of compute (Score:1)
Re:Yeah, OK, you know what you're talking about.. (Score:1)
Quantum mechanics is no more than an extension of regular mechanics that is only really handy when dealing with very small particles
Depends on what you mean by extension. Insofar as quantum mechanics reduces to classical mechanics in the classical regime, sure. But the rules of quantum mechanics, and quantum mechanical intuition, are very different.
And the effects of quantum mechanics are detectable at the macro scale, through particle statistics. The fact that stars can turn into white dwarfs and neutron stars at the end of their lifetimes, some materials can be superconducters, and liquid helium is a superfluid at low temperatures, are all explained by quantum mechanics, even though they occur on the macro scale.
I dare you to try Schrodiner's equation in polar coordinates
Most undergrad quantum mechanics courses go through this when they talk about the hydrogen atom; no big deal.
but anybody can understand the concepts if they have an open mind about it.
I think you're mistaking belief for understanding. All you need to believe in quantum mechanics is an open mind, and some imagination. What you need to understand quantum mechanics is to go through the math. But it's really not difficult. There are many books that cover most of the basics of the subject, with math only slightly above high school level.
Re:Matter holographs (aka "nanofabrication") (Score:2)
all computations will take the same amount of time, the time it takes for an electron(or other suitable particle) to choose a spin.
That's confusingly worded. More precisely, each quantum mechanical computation of the same type will take the same time, regardless of the input. For example, if you are using a quantum mechanical computer to find a "1" in a string of "0"s, it does not matter where the "1" is located. Different types of computations will obviously take different amounts of time.
Something Fishy... (Score:3)
I look at the web site and see "Will quantum effects dominate...in the 21st century?" As if modern computing technology wasn't already built on solid state physics and quantum mechanics.
Then I notice two of the speakers: Stapp who's into clairvoyance experiments and Josephson who after his Nobel Prize seems to be an mystical guru who talks complete crap on quantum mechanics and consciousness. Hameroff, another bogus physicist has cancelled. I was surprised not to see Dana Zohar talking about Quantum Healing or even Deepak Chopra. Even David Deutsch, whose formalisation of quantum computing is pretty damn cool, is a complete crackpot when he starts his sophomoric philosophical ramblings (as evinced by his recent book) - and I wonder what he'll be talking about.
And now it all comes together. This isn't a real symposium on QM, which is as old as the hills. This is a symposium on how much bogosity you can extract from QM.
There are two types of people in the world: those who've studied physics and know that QM is basic ordinary freshman material and the rest of the world who get their knowledge of QM from Slashdot and the popular press and think it's some bizarre mystico-mumbo-jumbo-weirdness from Planet X. I hope that over the cousre of the 21st century this situation can be rectified somewhat.
--Just one falsifiable... (Score:1)
Matter holographs (aka "nanofabrication") (Score:2)
Then again, few claims about capabilities beyond the most fundamental have any weight just now, much like those about the capabilities of electronics in Tesla's time. They've got enough problems just making quantum computers able to emulate a 10 MHz 486. Once those (or better) hit the market, then further quantum applications become feasable (i.e., we'll have a useable sense of what can and can't be done with basic quantum mechanics).
Re:getting closer to Star Trek all the time (Score:1)
As long as you destroy the qubit you're trying to send.
So, yes, it does sound a lot like star trek..
Re:getting closer to Star Trek all the time (Score:1)
Re:Matter holographs (aka "nanofabrication") (Score:1)
Heisenberg on the rocks (Score:5)
Sadly, because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we can't both know *where* and *when* the symposium is being held...;)
Re:Yeah, OK, you know what you're talking about.. (Score:1)
Now if we could just do it with software (Score:3)
The computers in Star Trek could be programmed simply by telling them what you wanted. They always seemed to do the right thing instantly, except of course when the plot called for a two-hour delay or for some malfunction. ;-)
Anyway, I say we software developers should always keep the "Where is Captain Picard?" test in the backs of our minds, and try to make our software make sense.
Penrose. (Score:3)
Roger Penrose is quoted in the article back yapping about his "Quantum Theory of Mind." Basically he says that because dreaming seems "weird" and if you talk about things generally then deciding on something seems like a collapse of a superposition in quantum states. Not very convincincing.
Another example of scientific celebrity status influencing people.
Re:getting closer to Star Trek all the time (Score:1)
I wouldn't call this the first... (Score:1)
There are symposia on quantum mechanics all the time (here's a short list of some [umd.edu]). This one is different in that it deals with the future of quantum mechanics as it applies to technology.
Corrections Granted (totally OT)! (Score:2)
correct me if I'm wrong
Gladly...
Regarding Babbage - first off, the concepts underlying the Difference Engine came to Babbage in 1812 (and, since Babbage was born in 1792 - that would make him 19 or 20 years old at the time!), as he was thinking on logarithms and the inacuracies that could occur during their calculation. He didn't follow up on his ideas until 1819, at which point he began building a small Difference Engine, finishing it in 1822. In 1823 he applied for and got a grant to build a larger engine (which was not completed). The Difference Engine, however, was more a calculator, and not a computer. The later Analytical Engine (began in 1833 - also not completed) was a true programmable device. More information can be found here [fourmilab.ch] and here [st-and.ac.uk]...
Ada Lovelace, however - didn't invent the loom you refer to - that goes to Joseph Marie Jacquard, who invented the Jacquard Loom in 1802 - which utilised a series of punched cards to control warp threads on each pass of the weft thread. Ada obviously knew quite a bit about these looms (as did Babbage, who conceived of using punch cards for the control of Analytical Engine, presumably after seeing such a loom in action - indeed, the names he settled upon for what we today call the CPU (Mill) and memory (the Store), happen to be derived from terms used in the weaving industry at the time!), and so wrote in her Sketch of the Analytical Engine [fourmilab.ch] in 1842:
The distinctive characteristic of the Analytical Engine, and that which has rendered it possible to endow mechanism with such extensive faculties as bid fair to make this engine the executive right-hand of abstract algebra, is the introduction into it of the principle which Jacquard devised for regulating, by means of punched cards, the most complicated patterns in the fabrication of brocaded stuffs. It is in this that the distinction between the two engines lies. Nothing of the sort exists in the Difference Engine. We may say most aptly, that the Analytical Engine weaves algebraical patterns just as the Jacquard-loom weaves flowers and leaves.
Indeed - even she understood the value of the Analytical Engine over that of the Difference Engine - its programmability (weavability?)!
I could indeed go on - you neglect to mention Konrad Zuse [geol.uib.no], as well as the contribution of Atanasoff and Berry (the ABC) for the first electronic stored program computer.
But I will stop here...
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
It strikes me as absurd . . . (Score:4)
. . . that there are only 58 posts so far, even though this story has been up for a while, and that of those 58 posts, well over half are trolls and/or pure idiocy; and yet, people have the balls to bitch when a wildly popular (judging from the number of responses) story about Star Wars or somesuch is posted, that people have the balls to bitch that said story about Star Wars or whatever is not "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."
Here's a newsflash: Quantam Mechanics is news for nerds. It is stuff that matters. And, clearly, nobody is reading it. If Slashdot strays from strictly hard science and tech news, it's only because the powers that be know which side their bread is buttered on.
Am I venting? Sorry, I'm venting. Goodnight, kids.
Sorry, but... (Score:1)
LOL
Quantum Applications... (Score:4)
Oh, and given I was at a quantum mechanics comference last month, I realy hope this isn't the first.
To explain the nomenclature:
Quantum mechanics is the mathematical framework used for dealing with fermions - i.e. the Schodinger equation and all it's baggage. This includes all the calculateion schemes, such as Hartree-Fock and the Density function theories that allow you to actually solve the Schodinger equation, (Or, rather, give approximate solutions). These are useful, old, and not cool.
Quantum applications, is ment to reffer to any system where the quantum properties of a system are exploited for some macroscopic function. The ubercool quantum computing is one example. These are not yet usable, very new, and considerably cooler than the quantum mechanics required to describe them.
Maybe I'm being a little pedantic here, but if your really interested in this, look at the correct areas would be a useful move.
Remeber that Quantum mechanics is pretty much twice the age of computing, give or take.
--
Corrected:Just one falsifiable... (Score:1)
Someone once asked me why so many people fell for newage stuff; I'm very pleased to have immediately shot back, "Because religion's lost credibilty but science is too hard."
Now he might be wrong (and would admit that, since he's a scientist), but it's a good reflexion of the importance of that stuff to Q.M....Do you know what you're talking about.. (Score:2)
Anyone with marginal physics education can understand how a laser works. It takes a lot more to build one.
One basic University course in QM (with prerequired Math and std. Physics) should do it, so any Physics student at my university has the basics after two years.
I have about that level of training (physics as a minor in my MSc degree) and I think the 'Quantum Medicine' of that Japanese speaker was relatively interesting. To get some real info, you have to do a few google searches.
quantum consciousness? (Score:1)
all the articles about quantum consciousness:
Materialism can never offer a satisfactory explanation of the world.
For every attempt at an explanation must begin with the formation of
thoughts about the phenomena of the world.
Materialism thus begins with the thought of matter or material
processes. But, in doing so, it is already confronted by two different
sets of facts: the material world, and the thoughts about it.
The materialist seeks to make these latter intelligible by regarding
them as purely material processes. He believes that thinking takes
place in the brain, much in the same way that digestion takes place
in the animal organs.
Just as he attributes mechanical and organic effects to matter, so he
credits matter in certain circumstances with the capacity to think.
He overlooks that, in doing so, he is merely shifting the problem from
one place to another. He ascribes the power of thinking to matter
instead of to himself.
And thus he is back again at his starting point. How does matter come
to think about its own nature? Why is it not simply satisfied with
itself and content just to exist? The materialist has turned his
attention away from the definite subject, his own I, and has arrived
at an image of something quite vague and indefinite. Here the old
riddle meets him again. The materialistic conception cannot solve the
problem; it can only shift it from one place to another.
(Rudolf Steiner, *The Philosophy of Freedom*, Chapter 2).
http://www.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA004/TPOF/pofc
regards,
johnRpenner.
Re:No (Score:1)
Quantum applications are already here (Score:2)
If we are getting pedantic, isn't most of the stuff based on solid-state physics (transistors, Peltier coolers, semiconductor lasers, STJ (superconducting tunnel junction) sensors, you name it...) quantum applications?
Quantum applications .. are not yet usable, very new, and considerably cooler than the quantum mechanics required to describe them.
SQUIDs (Superconducting QUantum Interference Device) are really _cool_, as they are used at cryogenic temperatures.
SQUIDs are high-sensitivity (down to Bohr magneton) magnetometers. They are often used when toying with superconducting electronics, as they are extremely sensitive current sensors that work well in liquid-helium temperatures. I'm not sure of this, but I think some of the NMR (nucleomagnetic resonance) imaging devices use SQUID arrays as read-out electronics.
Re:Quantum applications are already here (Score:1)
Just a follow up. (Score:2)
I would guess, and it is a guess, that some of the fantastic Jetson type applications might be real 3d copying of objects refered to, not a 3d printer (of which there are many types that operate at room temperature). The 2 to 3 year time frame cited, almost certainly is a suggestion that the integration of a few atomic optic devices might be working together by then. It might even refer to the possibility of a technology demonstrater for a atomic laser gyroscope or gravity sensor, or even a new brand of atomic clock. Reading the page I get the impression someone with only a peripheral understanding of the subject tried to boil the information down to some crucial points, but a little context got lost in the process.
That said, I've seen people who should have known better make outragious claims, that they were glad no one held against them.
Anyway, unless we come up with a refrigerator/power generator that can "work around" *wink wink* the second law of thermodynamics they're really going to have a temperature problem with trying to move these contraptions in to the more practical arena. Liquid helium is fine for big government, the DOE, DOD, and big science, but not big business. They've got quite the thermal challenge between liquid helium and liquid nitrogen (which cost some where between milk and beer when I did research).
I never did get around to making ice cream with liquid nitrogen. I really regret that. But I bet ice cream made with liquid helium wouild be like 10 times smoother. Mmmmm neopolitane.
Re:Yeah, OK, you know what you're talking about.. (Score:1)
I never got that Astrophysics degree, but I can still hold an intelligent conversation with my friends who are studying Solar neutrinos, searching for the Higgs Particle and just plain having fun with HEAP.
As for people stroking their ego... it happens. But as long as they have fun and don't hurt no body...
Re:Replicator Tech? (Score:2)
Although, if the IRS is after you...
This is it! Finally! (Score:1)
Re:A programming language for this kind of compute (Score:1)
Re:Principally Uncertain... (Score:1)
In related news... (Score:1)
Oh wait..what about quantum computers?
Re:Schroedinger's Post (Score:1)
Schroedinger's Post (Score:3)
Re:getting closer to Star Trek all the time (Score:3)
Which is a pretty remarkable prediction, considering that at present, atom holography is one of the projects at the Gedanken Laboratory [arizona.edu], which means that it is currently only a theoretical speculation. In fact, most of the way-out stuff being discussed here is in the Gedanken Lab at present.
From pure theory to experimental demonstration in two or three years is a little hard to believe. I think I spy with my little eye a bit of self-promotion here, but it may just be unbounded scientific optimism.
Tim
getting closer to Star Trek all the time (Score:2)
Quoted from this article [arizona.edu], which was linked to in the posted article.
No (Score:2)
Where and when can be known
It doesn't make any sense to have an implicit uncertainty within the space-time coordinates
And, yes, I am the asshole that spoils all fun
Principally Uncertain... (Score:1)
Re:No (Score:1)
But see, it works out, if we know when and where, we don't know energy and momentum.. and these symposiums are always a suprise as to how much excitement they have!
Re:Quantum Applications... (Score:1)
Remeber that Quantum mechanics is pretty much twice the age of computing, give or take.
I did 2 years of quantum mechanics, and I don't know much about it. But I do know a bit about computers, and since we're being pedantic here..
The first 'computer' design is subject to debate. Popular view is that it was Babbage's difference engine, designed in 1822. The first calculator (not including the abacus) was Schickard's Calculating Clock, built in 1623. (look at http://www.best.com/~wilson/faq/chrono.html)
The first example of a programmable device was the loom devised by Ada Lovelace - again late 1800s (correct me if I'm wrong).
The theory of computers was developed in 1937 by Alan Matheson Turing. This would be the best date to put the birth of the theory of computers, as opposed to quantum theory, 7 years earlier.
The first computer, Colossus, was developed at Bletchley Park in December 1943 by a team including Turing.
The first commercial computer (and widely believed to be the first computer until the British Govt. revealed the existence of Colossus) was ENIAC. This was built in Nov 1945.
So there.
--This post is about truth, beauty, freedom and above all things, Karma
Yeah, OK, you know what you're talking about.. (Score:1)
I can repeat the basic 3 or 4 statements that everybody repeats to 'show' that they understand the principles of quantum this and that too, but that falls pretty f'n short of my definition of 'understanding' something..
This is geek whoring at it's worst, you are trying to appeal to people who would like to think they have a clue about this sort of thing, but really really really don't, nor are they likely to gain one, ever. Quantum mechanics is some fucked up shit, man